Halloween Franchise (1978-?)
- blindside8zao
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
- Location: Greensboro, NC
Halloween Franchise (1978-?)
There are so many dvds of this movie. I was looking at the "restored" edition and was wondering and noticed that the run time was the same as two other DVDs I looked at, 91-92 minutes. Are they all the same? Marketing gimmick? The one with the 87 min documentary and carpenter commentary looks the best of this "restored" version isn't any longer than the others. Wondering if anyone had any info.
- Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
The two editions I have which I feel gives you everything you'd need are the Restored Limited Edition which includes the film and the T.V. version with the 12 additional minutes included as well as the Halloween Unmasked 2000 doc. And then, get the Divimax 25th Anniversary Edition which features the excellent Criterion commentary track with Carpenter and Debra Hill as well as the A Cut Above The Rest retro doc and On Location - 25 years Later -- all of which are worth it if you're a big fan of the movie.blindside8zao wrote:There are so many dvds of this movie. I was looking at the "restored" edition and was wondering and noticed that the run time was the same as two other DVDs I looked at, 91-92 minutes. Are they all the same? Marketing gimmick? The one with the 87 min documentary and carpenter commentary looks the best of this "restored" version isn't any longer than the others. Wondering if anyone had any info.
-
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am
But if you don't have enough cash, try your best to get that Limited Edition 2-disc Fletch mentioned or the 1-disc version of that set with the theatrical cut (at least). The Divimax edition has neat special features, but Anchor Bay blew the color timing and brightened the image in innappropriate places. It's a terrible transfer, much like the limited-edition Divimax "widescreen" transfer of Evil Dead, which you should avoid at all costs.
- blindside8zao
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
- Location: Greensboro, NC
right, wasn't evil dead originally filmed fullscreen? It's why I haven't bought a copy yet, because the fullscreen isn't readily available in stores any more.
Thanks for the good advice on Halloween. I'm a huge horror buff and for some reason haven't gotten around to picking this up. I guess it's because they use to show it on TV so much.
Thanks for the good advice on Halloween. I'm a huge horror buff and for some reason haven't gotten around to picking this up. I guess it's because they use to show it on TV so much.
-
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
- Location: London, UK
Anchor Bay didn't blow the colour timing on the Divimax edition, rather they didn't change it from what was on the negative. The 35mm print I saw a year or so back looked, colour-wise, far closer to the Divimax transfer rather than the 1999 edition. As I understand it, Dean Cundey took the opportunity to retime the whole film according to how he'd originally have shot it if he'd had the time/resources originally, implementing a whole new colour scheme on the photography (brown leaves and lawns everywhere, as opposed to the green on the original prints and Divimax transfer, since the movie was shot in spring). I bought the Divimax mostly for the commentary and script, but I still have no problems with the transfer. Indeed, it's beautiful.
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Does that work? If you fiddle with the colors and make the grass brown instead of a lush green, wouldn't that throw everything else off? Or did he go through this one frame at a time and 'selectively' adjust things (I don't know what the process is called, but they had a demonstration on the Lord of the Rings supplemental materials)?
- Gordon
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am
Yes, a similar featurette on digital domain colour adjusting is on the 2-disc of Fincher's, Seven. Individual colour values on objects can be corrected. Adam Adams, the award-winning colour timer, worked with Cundey on the 1999 transfer. It's an interesting and impressive experiment, though the film takes on the quality of Bava and Argento at times, which seems a bit much, to me. I don't have anything 'against' either transfer; the Divimax approximates 35mm prints and the Adams-Cundey transfer approximates the orginal intent. Cundey latter got to use the blue lighting extensively on The Thing, which more suited, thematically, to stylized lighting.
It's a tricky business, transfering film to digital tape. In the 50s, 60s and 70s, they used different negative stocks and the chemical bath processes were different, printing stocks were different. Thus, when you make a new print from the negative of a vintage film, it will definitely look different to original prints. It would be very difficult and time consuming to try and approximate original prints and that may (Huston's, Moby Dick) or may not (most low-budget films, especially 16mm stuff like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) be desirable. So, what is the telecine op to do when creating a new transfer from the o-neg or a new interpostive of a 30+ year-old film? Colour correction of some kind is usually always necessary on polychromatic films (and often monochromatic films, as Criterion often does) but which colours and to which degree? That's why it's so important to have Vittorio Storaro supervise the transfer for The Conformist, otherwise the film might up with a bungled palette if you let any clock-puncher do it alone.
It's a tricky business, transfering film to digital tape. In the 50s, 60s and 70s, they used different negative stocks and the chemical bath processes were different, printing stocks were different. Thus, when you make a new print from the negative of a vintage film, it will definitely look different to original prints. It would be very difficult and time consuming to try and approximate original prints and that may (Huston's, Moby Dick) or may not (most low-budget films, especially 16mm stuff like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) be desirable. So, what is the telecine op to do when creating a new transfer from the o-neg or a new interpostive of a 30+ year-old film? Colour correction of some kind is usually always necessary on polychromatic films (and often monochromatic films, as Criterion often does) but which colours and to which degree? That's why it's so important to have Vittorio Storaro supervise the transfer for The Conformist, otherwise the film might up with a bungled palette if you let any clock-puncher do it alone.
- Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
I believe they also did this to the Divimax Restored Cut of Manhunter but I felt that they muted the colors a little too much for my liking. Some of the greens in the film, originally, took on an almost an eerie neon-like glow and were now toned down. But Mann's commentary on this disc makes it a must-have if you're a fan of the movie and of him.Narshty wrote:Anchor Bay didn't blow the colour timing on the Divimax edition, rather they didn't change it from what was on the negative. The 35mm print I saw a year or so back looked, colour-wise, far closer to the Divimax transfer rather than the 1999 edition. As I understand it, Dean Cundey took the opportunity to retime the whole film according to how he'd originally have shot it if he'd had the time/resources originally, implementing a whole new colour scheme on the photography (brown leaves and lawns everywhere, as opposed to the green on the original prints and Divimax transfer, since the movie was shot in spring). I bought the Divimax mostly for the commentary and script, but I still have no problems with the transfer. Indeed, it's beautiful.
- The Invunche
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:43 am
- Location: Denmark
The funny thing about the commentary track is that Mann mentiones what he says is an important scene that isn't even present. It was present in my old VHS version and the version shown on Danish TV. So much for a "director's cut".
The scene:
The scene:
Got the text from IMDb so don't kill me if it isn't 100% correct.CRAWFORD: You sympathize with this guy?
GRAHAM: As a child, my heart bleeds for him. Someone took a little boy and turned him into a monster. But as an adult... as an adult, he's irredeemable. He butchers whole families to fulfill some sick fantasy. As an adult, I think someone should blow the sick fuck out of his socks.[Turns around in his chair to face Crawford.] Are you uncomfortable with this kind of understanding?[Crawford pivots to put his back against the wall.]
- Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
Yep. That's one of my favorite scenes in the entire movie. There are several cuts of the movie, documented in great detail here.The Invunche wrote:The funny thing about the commentary track is that Mann mentiones what he says is an important scene that isn't even present. It was present in my old VHS version and the version shown on Danish TV. So much for a "director's cut".
The scene:
Got the text from IMDb so don't kill me if it isn't 100% correct.CRAWFORD: You sympathize with this guy?
GRAHAM: As a child, my heart bleeds for him. Someone took a little boy and turned him into a monster. But as an adult... as an adult, he's irredeemable. He butchers whole families to fulfill some sick fantasy. As an adult, I think someone should blow the sick fuck out of his socks.[Turns around in his chair to face Crawford.] Are you uncomfortable with this kind of understanding?[Crawford pivots to put his back against the wall.]
And the crappy thing is that MGM released the theatrical version with that exchange of dialogue intact but in a pan and scan version!
- Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
Wow, Anchor Bay going back to the well, AGAIN. What a shocker...
From DavidDVD:
From DavidDVD:
Anchor Bay Entertainment will release Halloween: 25 Years of Terror, the most comprehensive and official documentary on the "Halloween" films ever produced, on July 25th. Narrated by P. J. Soles, the documentary chronicles the longevity of the films over the past quarter century and features over 80 interviews with actors and crew members from the entire franchise, as well as fans and critics. Also featured are never-before-seen behind-the-scenes clips, rare photos, alternate footage, original artwork, music and footage from the fan-organized Halloween Returns To Haddonfield 25th Anniversary Convention. Retail will be $19.99.
- Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
- Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
Yeah, Anchor Bay did that to Manhunter as well. I don't like it at all. However, I did pick up the current version (I believe it is) for the Criterion commentary track and the retro. doc/featurettes which are quite good.cafeman wrote:There is a review at dvdfile.com with a comparison of the current version with an older version which shows quite a shocking alteration of colour scheme which has so far held me off from buying the more recent disc.
- The Invunche
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:43 am
- Location: Denmark
- Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
Here's some more info on it.
-
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:25 am
- Contact:
this is really out of line. there is nothing about the original film that calls for a remake or "re-vision." if anything, they should just give the original a wide release in october, much like the smaller limited theatrical releases last year.
even looking at those cast pictures on wikipedia makes me cringe. the y2k gloss trying to imitate the 1970s grit instantly sucks any sense of timelessness. why not attempt a new horror movie, something original, instead of plagiarizing?
even looking at those cast pictures on wikipedia makes me cringe. the y2k gloss trying to imitate the 1970s grit instantly sucks any sense of timelessness. why not attempt a new horror movie, something original, instead of plagiarizing?
- Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm
I thought so too but I'm going to wait and see it for myself. I just hope that Rob's not taking the same route as Gus Van Sant. Rob is an okay, no-biggie director. House of 1000 Corpses is so lame except for the fabulous Karen Black and the stunning underground sequence. The Devil Rejects is slightly better but not a movie I'd watch again.even looking at those cast pictures on wikipedia makes me cringe. the y2k gloss trying to imitate the 1970s grit instantly sucks any sense of timelessness. why not attempt a new horror movie, something original, instead of plagiarizing